Judgment ( 1. ) THE present appeal has been filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the CPC herein it is prayed that Case No. 613/2004 pending in the Family Court of Indore be transferred to the Family Court, Panna. ( 2. ) FACTS of the case are that petitioner is the ife of respondent. The marriage as solemnised at Indore on 7-12-2001 and petitioner has given birth to a baby child on 1-10-2002. At present, the petitioner is serving at Village Ganj Saleha, District Panna as contract teacher. Respondent has filed a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 hich is pending in the Family Court at Indore and numbered as 613/2004. ( 3. ) THE application filed by the petitioner is opposed by the respondent stating that on the instance of the petitioner, criminal case has been lodged at Bhopal in hich it is alleged that respondent is demanding a sum of Rs. 5 lacs and the present application is filed ith an oblique motive to harass the respondent. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in job as teacher and is having a baby aged 2 years. Apart from this, the distance bet een Panna and Indore is 700 kms; and there is no direct connecting trains to reach to Indore, therefore, it is practically not possible to appear in the case at Indore. ( 5. ) SHRI Vinay Zela at, learned Counsel for petitioner placed reliance on a decision reported in ,, AIR2002 SC 396 , Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Anr. herein Honble Supreme Court has observed that it is convenience of ife that must be looked at. In this case, the lady-petitioner ho as living and orking at Delhi, it as found that she ould be unable to travel up and do n from Delhi to Ara, a distance of about 1100 kms. From Delhi to defend the matrimonial proceedings. ( 6. ) FURTHER reliance as placed on a decision reported in ,, (2002 )10 SCC136 , Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri, herein Honble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the relevant circumstances that there is a small child ith the ife in Bombay and the ife does not have anybody ho can conveniently accompany her to Delhi. ( 7. ( 6. ) FURTHER reliance as placed on a decision reported in ,, (2002 )10 SCC136 , Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri, herein Honble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the relevant circumstances that there is a small child ith the ife in Bombay and the ife does not have anybody ho can conveniently accompany her to Delhi. ( 7. ) LEARNED Counsel for respondent submits that it is not safe for the respondent to attend the Court at Panna. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision reported in ,, AIR2005 SC 3200 , 2005 (3 )AWC2964 (SC ), 2005 (6 )Bomcr172 , 2005 Crilj3731 , [2006 (2 )JCR174 (SC )], JT2005 (6 )SC 276 , 2005 (3 )Mhlj930 , (2005 )6 SCC98 , 2005 (3 )SLJ4 (SC ), Pratibha Khemka v. Sanjay Kumar Khemka, herein after taking into consideration the apprehension of the husband on account of threat to his ife, the case as transferred from Family Court Satna to Family Court, Luckno instead of Family Court at Barahbanki. ( 8. ) AFTER taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it ill be inconvenient for the petitioner to contest the matrimonial case at Indore as the petitioner is in job at Panna and is having a baby of t o years. There is nothing on record hich goes to sho that life of respondent is in danger if he attends the case at Panna. ( 9. ) IN the circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner is allo ed and it is ordered that case No. 613/2004 hich is pending in the Family Court at Indore be transferred to Family Court, Panna. No order as to costs. C. C. as Per rules.